RAND: Michael J. McNerney2015-07-31T21:09:01ZCopyright (c) 2015, The RAND CorporationRAND Corporationhttp://www.rand.org/about/people/m/mcnerney_michael_j.htmlAir National Guard Remotely Piloted Aircraft and Domestic Missionshttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1016.html2015-06-22T08:30:00Z2015-06-22T08:30:00ZThis report is intended to help guide discussion of the utility of Air National Guard remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) in domestic missions, and it explores the policy and operational constraints that Air National Guard RPAs face.NATO Needs a Comprehensive Strategy for Russiahttp://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE143.html2015-03-25T11:30:00Z2015-03-25T11:30:00ZThis perspective describes two possible strategies -- (1) punishment and disengagement and (2) resilience and engagement -- for how the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can approach Russia in light of Moscow's continuing intervention in Ukraine.Armed Drone Myth 3: Global Proliferation Demands Blanket Restrictions on Saleshttp://www.rand.org/blog/2015/02/armed-drone-myth-3-global-proliferation-demands-blanket.html2015-02-19T16:00:00Z2015-02-19T16:00:00ZMore than 70 countries have acquired drones of different classes and for different purposes. However, the number of countries actually developing Armed Drone Myth 2: It's Counterproductive to Develop International Normshttp://www.rand.org/blog/2015/02/armed-drone-myth-2-its-counterproductive-to-develop.html2015-02-18T13:00:00Z2015-02-18T13:00:00ZThe challenge in establishing international norms for armed drones will be to define rules that preserve the rights of countries to use them in legitimate ways against legitimate threats (senior al Qaeda or Islamic State terrorists) while constraining illegitimate uses (political dissidents).Armed Drone Myth 1: They Will Transform How War Is Waged Globallyhttp://www.rand.org/blog/2015/02/armed-drone-myth-1-they-will-transform-how-war-is-waged.html2015-02-17T11:00:00Z2015-02-17T11:00:00ZLong-range military drones are fundamentally misunderstood. Their champions wrongly contend they are revolutionizing warfare, while critics fear their spread would greatly increase the threat that China, terrorists, and others pose.New Security and Justice Sector Partnership Modelshttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR605.html2014-05-14T13:15:00Z2014-05-14T13:15:00ZRAND researchers analyzed partnership models that could help implement recent policy guidance to strengthen security sector assistance and promote reform in the Middle East and North Africa.A New Approach to Security and Justice Sector Assistancehttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9779.html2014-05-14T13:15:00Z2014-05-14T13:15:00ZRAND researchers examined ways to reshape security and justice sector assistance programs, and designed a new approach -- an Enhanced Partnership Planning Model that can be tailored to partner-nation needs and particular U.S. strategic interests.Evaluating the Impact of the Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studieshttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR388.html2014-04-23T09:45:00Z2014-04-23T09:45:00ZThe five U.S. Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies have been helping partner nations build strategic capacity for almost 20 years. This study analyzes the centers' impact and the ways in which they assess their programs.Armed and Dangerous?http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR449.html2014-04-07T07:45:00Z2014-04-07T07:45:00ZRAND researchers examined whether armed drones are transformative weapons, how dangerous their proliferation will be, and whether U.S. use of these weapons can shape a broader set of international norms that discourage their misuse by others.Assessing Security Cooperation as a Preventive Toolhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR350.html2014-03-20T08:00:00Z2014-03-20T08:00:00ZBased on an analysis of security cooperation (SC) data and state fragility scores for 107 countries in 1991-2008, the report describes the correlation between provision of SC by the United States and a reduction in partner state fragility.Smooth Transitions?http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9749.html2013-11-05T00:01:00Z2013-11-05T00:01:00ZThis brief outlines policy and planning lessons that have been encapsulated in a study of the U.S. military's transition out of Iraq at the end of 2011 and the handover of property and responsibilities to Embassy Baghdad and the government of Iraq.Ending the U.S. War in Iraqhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR232.html2013-11-05T00:01:00Z2013-11-05T00:01:00ZThis book looks at the planning and execution of the U.S. military's exit from Iraq and the transition of responsibilities to the Iraqi government, U.S. embassy, Office of Security Cooperation, USCENTCOM, and other U.S. departments and agencies.Overseas Basing of U.S. Military Forceshttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR201.html2013-04-29T09:00:00Z2013-04-29T09:00:00ZAssesses the advisability of changing the overseas basing presence of U.S. forces based on strategic benefits, risks, and costs. Characterizes how this presence contributes to assurance, deterrence, responsiveness, and security cooperation goals.U.S. Overseas Military Posturehttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9708.html2013-04-29T09:00:00Z2013-04-29T09:00:00ZIn an environment of fiscal constraints and shifting strategic needs, policymakers should carefully weigh the strategic capability effects, relative costs, and risks associated with potential changes to U.S. overseas military posture.A Strategy-Based Framework for Accommodating Reductions in the Defense Budgethttp://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP379.html2012-10-29T09:45:00Z2012-10-29T09:45:00ZRAND analysts posit that federal budget deficit pressure may result in further Defense Department reductions, and suggest starting from a strategy basis in determining cuts, prioritizing challenges, and identifying where to accept more risk.U.S. Overseas Military Presencehttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1211.html2012-09-11T09:45:00Z2012-09-11T09:45:00ZThe authors outline the critical choices policymakers need to address to define future U.S. global military presence, with the choice based on different strategic perspectives on how overseas military presence serves U.S. global security interests.